[inaudible 00:26:06]

reflecting on the year after george floyd for me is that the different responses that we all have right are valid and true and authentic and they create

Different ways to prepend a line: (echo 'line to prepend';cat file)|sponge file sed -i '1iline to prepend' file # GNU sed -i '' $'1i\\\nline to prepend\n' file # BSD printf %s\\n 0a 'line to prepend' . w|ed -s file perl -pi -e 'print"line to prepend\n"if$.==1' file

The first argument to shared_context (the shared group name) is superfluous. It feels a bit like "what's this argument for again?" (Note that you could still use it with include_context to include the group manually, but it's a bit odd to mix-and-match the approaches).

paint, chairs, food, electric and neon lights, smoke, water, old socks, a dog,movies, a thousand other things that will be discovered by the present generation of artists.

We live in a moment where censorship and free speech are hot button topics. So it’s all the more striking that these anti-CRT bills, with clear intent to limit a discussion of the basic facts of American history and society, are being made into law all over America with minimum protest from the people who yelp the loudest about cancel culture. 

In the lawsuit, the Reids and their attorney are said to argue that WMG has refused to terminate its copyright ownership of the band's early work, including their 1985 debut album Psychocandy. The Reids are asking WMG for at least $2.5 million in damages, and refer to Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976 in their lawsuit.

There are many projects that does not use the master branch as default. For example, Next.js uses the canary branch, the npm CLI and many more other projects uses stuff like prod, production, dev, develop, release, beta, head.

It just happens that most projects chose to be "lazy" (stick to default), opted to use master

On existing projects, consider the global effort to change from origin/master to origin/main. The cost of being different than git convention and every book, tutorial, and blog post. Is the cost of change and being different worth it?

The main (IMO) feature of MQTT – quality of service – doesn't make sense in our case: if a WebSocket server is down and doesn't receive broadcast messages (through HTTP/Redis/queue), it's likely not to handle client connections too.

Rather than write new tooling we decided to take advantage of tooling we had in place for our unit tests. Our unit tests already used FactoryBot, a test data generation library, for building up test datasets for a variety of test scenarios. Plus, we had already built up a nice suite of helpers that we coud re-use. By using tools and libraries already a part of the backend technology’s ecosystem we were able to spend less time building additional tooling. We had less code to maintain because of this and more time to work on solving our customer’s pain points.

We used testing tools that were in the same ecosystem as our backend technology stack for primrily three reasons: We owned both ends of the stack Team experience Interacting with the database

Once a variable is specified with the use method, access it with EnvSetting.my_var Or you can still use the Hash syntax if you prefer it: EnvSetting["MY_VAR"]

This stuff is all rather boring or frustrating when you just want to get your app finished

Handling 401s well is important for the user's experience. They won't happen often (though more often than I expected), but really do break everything if you're not careful. Getting a good authentication abstraction library for Vue or Ember or whatever you are using should help with a lot of the boring parts. You'll probably need to define some extra strategies/rules for this cookie session approach, but if it's anything like in ember-simple-auth they're so simple it feels like cheating, because the Rails app is doing all of the hard work and you just need the js part to spot a 401 and handle logging in and retrying whatever it was doing before.

No I'm writing it from first principles using the bisect runner as a guide and some other external gems.

For me the diagrams make it easier to talk about what the tests do without getting bogged down by how they do it.

I’m going to add the API Server as an actor to my first test sequence to give some granularity as to what I’m actually testing.

For features like websocket interactions, a single full-stack smoke test is almost essential to confirm that things are going as planned, even if the individual parts of the interaction are also covered by unit tests.

How to test at the correct level?

As many things in life, deciding what to test at each level of testing is a trade-off:

One such feature is parameterized tests. This feature enables us to execute a single test method multiple times with different parameters.

Move it to Jest. This potentially requires extending our jsdom mocked browser environment. Move it to RSpec. This will probably require us changing our perspective to a use-case oriented one. We just want to make sure we have the same value coverage.

We should test for events emitted in response to an action in our component. This is used to verify the correct events are being fired with the correct arguments.

Do not test the internal implementation of the child components:

targeting what the user actually sees

The most important guideline to give is the following: Write clean unit tests if there is actual value in testing a complex piece of logic in isolation to prevent it from breaking in the future Otherwise, try to write your specs as close to the user’s flow as possible

Don’t test the library

Testing the hasMetricTypes computed prop would seem like a given here. But to test if the computed property is returning the length of metricTypes, is testing the Vue library itself. There is no value in this, besides it adding to the test suite.

It’s better to test a component in the way the user interacts with it: checking the rendered template.

Nicholas Carr is the author of The Shallows and The Glass Cage: Automation and Us. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Wired.

Which gets the job done, but that's a chunk of boilerplate for a simple accessor

If an access modifier is not specified it is implicitly public as that matches the convenient nature of JavaScript 🌹.

I like auto-property generation... who needs boilerplate code?

Programmers should be encouraged to understand what is correct, why it is correct, and then propagate.

DigiNotar was a Dutch certificate authority owned by VASCO Data Security International, Inc.[1][2] On September 3, 2011, after it had become clear that a security breach had resulted in the fraudulent issuing of certificates, the Dutch government took over operational management of DigiNotar's systems.[3]

The Plaza maintains a Betsey Johnson-designed suite in honor of Eloise, the capricious six-year-old that fictionally lived on the property.

That was it. I still got the paper. I got all my voluntary departure, everything.

I'm not sure why MSFT decided to change these codes in the first place. While it might have been a noble goal to follow the IETF standard (though I'm not really familiar with this), the old codes were already out there, and most developers don't benefit by the new codes, nor care about what these codes are called (a code is a code). Just the opposite occurs in fact, since now everyone including MSFT itself has to deal with two codes that represent the same language (and the resulting problems). My own program needs to be fixed to handle this (after a customer contacted me with an issue), others have cited problems on the web (and far more probably haven't publicised theirs), and MSFT itself had to deal with this in their own code. This includes adding both codes to .NET even though they're actually the same language (in 4.0 they distinguished between the two by adding the name "legacy" to the full language name of the older codes), adding special documentation to highlight this situation in MSDN, making "zh-Hans" the parent culture of "zh-CHS" (not sure if it was always this way but it's a highly questionable relationship), and even adding special automated code to newly created "add-in" projects in Visual Studio 2008 (only to later remove this code in Visual Studio 2010, without explanation and therefore causing confusion for developers - long story). In any case, this is not your doing of course, but I don't see how anyone benefits from this change in practice. Only those developers who really care about following the IETF standard would be impacted, and that number is likely very low. For all others, the new codes are just an expensive headache. Again, not blaming you of cours

I feel the pain. It is a normal thing that standards do evolve over time, though, and our software needs to cope with it.

I'm not sure why MSFT decided to change these codes in the first place. While it might have been a noble goal to follow the IETF standard (though I'm not really familiar with this), the old codes were already out there, and most developers don't benefit by the new codes, nor care about what these codes are called (a code is a code).

Why do people start smoking? Surely they know it's addictive, expensive, and bad for you

We need to be really careful about what's 'same origin' because the server has no idea what host/path the various cookies are associated with. It just has a list of cookies that the browser had determined to be relevant for this SSR'd page, and not for any other subrequests.

I've been thinking more about how to best do this. The preferred way might be to use the same domain and have an application load balancer like nginx split traffic on the URL path (e.g. /api). This is for two reasons. Firstly, you might not necessarily want to cookie the primary/apex domain and have the cookie shared across all subdomains. You also might not want to do CORS because preflight requests add latency and CORS adds complication.

You can see the implementation here: https://github.com/sveltejs/sapper/blob/339c417b24e8429d3adc9c9f196bf159a5fce874/runtime/src/server/middleware/get_page_handler.ts#L137

Stack-exchange is not teaching or education. It's just giving out answers for upvotes. Just like some tech support is about closing tickets.

Furthermore many of them are paid or rated by the number of tickets they close, not solutions. It's a bad recipe and unfortunately it has become the norm.

From experience I can say that professionals will be more forgiving if you go through things at a basic level than amateurs who have no idea what you're talking about, so people will probably err on the side of caution and not assume the customer has a high level of expertise.

Before we dive into the details of the actual migration, let’s discuss the theory behind it.

one of the following package repositories:

J.‑C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, A. Prechal, M. Safjan, P.G. Xuereb and L.S. Rossi

As the token is unique and unpredictable, it also enforces proper sequence of events (e.g. screen 1, then 2, then 3) which raises usability problem (e.g. user opens multiple tabs). It can be relaxed by using per session CSRF token instead of per request CSRF token.

L. Bay Larsen

A. Prechal

A. Arabadjiev

J.‑C. Bonichot

K. Lenaerts

J.‑C. Bonichot

Erich Segal

“Monetising what we see as sacred knowledge, our way of being – driving, walking – is sacred knowledge and the only people who should have any purview over that is our community. … What if we look at what the data could do for our community and how to achieve that? … We are gathering our data because we love our people, we want a better future for the next generations. What if all data was gathered for those reasons? What would it look like?”

I worked on a recent project to sketch out for a centre-right German think-tank how a European data commons might work. I tried to steer it away from property rights and towards what you’d get if you started with the commons and then worked back to what data could be harnessed, and to which collective purposes. This is eminently do-able, and pushes you towards two distinct areas; groups of people who are served poorly or not at all by current data regimes, and existing cooperatives, unions and mutual societies who could collect and process their members’ data to improve collective bargaining, or licence access to it to generate revenue and boost affiliate membership. Viewing personal data as a collective asset points towards all sorts of currently under-provided public goods (I briefly describe several, on p. 74 here – yes, oddly enough, this stuff got shoved into an annex).

I particularly enjoyed the California water commons, with its quiet nod to Elinor Ostrom’s original post-graduate research on emergent cooperation between county water-boards.

banning DDT also seemed ludicrous until it wasn’t.

Bonus points if it can walk the user through the upstream contribution process

In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self.

The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.

Such a thing as an independent political movement was outside her imagination: and in any case the Party was invincible. It would always exist, and it would always be the same. You could only rebel against it by secret disobedience or, at most, by isolated acts of violence such as killing somebody or blowing something up.

Life as she saw it was quite simple. You wanted a good time; 'they', meaning the Party, wanted to stop you having it; you broke the rules as best you could. She seemed to think it just as natural that 'they' should want to rob you of your pleasures as that you should want to avoid being caught. She hated the Party, and said so in the crudest words, but she made no general criticism of it. Except where it touched upon her own life she had no interest in Party doctrine.

The Kay-Gees

The Honeydrippers

All The People

James Brown

Building an app with all the modern best practices — code-splitting, offline support, server-rendered views with client-side hydration — is fiendishly complicated. SvelteKit does all the boring stuff for you so that you can get on with the creative part.

I miss the thriving blogging culture of circa 1999-2012. People blogged before and after those dates, but that was a period where blogging really had an outsized voice in shaping political and cultural conversation.

or simply install the package to devDependencies rather than dependencies, which will cause it to get bundled (and therefore compiled) with your app:

June Mathis

But in the dark world of HTML email, where the motto is "code like it's 1996" because Outlook uses the rendering engine from MS Word and Gmail removes almost everything, every method for making two elements overlap that I can think of is unsuitable due to poor client support

HTML in emails is somehow in a forgotten world and is about lots of years behind us.

MJML comes out of the box with a set of standard components to help you build easily your first templates without having to reinvent the wheel.

We’re the ones who code. The people you talk to are the people who work on your project. When you have a question, we know what we are talking about.

Embedded CSS: This style is becoming more popular with the rise of mobile and responsive emails. Embedded CSS codes are determined in one place of an email, generally in the <head> section as a <style>. Some email servers still strip the information out of this section, which can cause display problems.

However, this doesn’t mean that your email has to look the same across every client—it just needs to be easily accessible for all of your subscribers.

Although a lot of email development is stuck in the past, that doesn’t mean we can’t modernize our campaigns right along with our websites. Many of these tips can be baked right into your email boilerplate or code snippets, allowing you to create more accessible HTML emails without too much thought.

Please have a look at (in same order)

Email require their own flavor of HTML and CSS. Want to have rows or columns in your layout? You'll have to use <table> tags—a method long buried by web developers. There's also no support for external stylesheets, element position styling, and so on...

We’re big proponents of the idea that Email doesn’t have to look the same everywhere — if it looks different, but not broken, that’s fine.

If instead of commenting, you write a response on your blog, you are standing behind your words, and associating them with the rest of your writing. The social dynamics are very different; you think more before responding instead of posting a quick flame. You can't really spam, as you are only soiling your own garden.

A bit of a tour through the Ruby source code seems necessary as the documentation is a bit thin.

:structured - Lumberjack::Formatter::StructuredFormatter - crawls the object and applies the formatter recursively to Enumerable objects found in it (arrays, hashes, etc.).

As designers, we are often burdened by the responsibility of producing and managing website content. It’s not our job to write it, but it’s not the client’s either. In many cases a vacuum emerges which ultimately gets filled with poor content. We can avert disaster by including content production in the design process.

I don't believe the sprockets and sprockets-rails maintainers (actually it's up to the Rails maintainers, see rails/rails#28430) currently consider it broken. (I am not a committer/maintainer on any of those projects). So there is no point in "waiting for someone else to fix" it; that is not going to happen (unless you can change their minds). You just need to figure out the right way to use sprockets 4 with rails as it is.

Actually, I've decided to stop using labels for a while. A "bug" label gives the impression that someone else is going to fix the problem. We don't have enough volunteers for that (new contributors welcome!). I try to help people working on issues, though. I've spent many hours on this one.

GRADE K-4 GRADE 5-6 GRADE 7-8 GRADE 9-12 SPANISH TECH TEACHER Teacher Sign Up Sign In Teacher Sign Up Sign In GRADE K-4 GRADE 5-6 GRADE 7-8 GRADE 9-12 SPANISH TECH TEACHER TT GRADE K-4 GRADE 5-6 GRADE 7-8 GRADE 9-12 SPANISH TECH TEACHER Teacher sign up Sign In Why did ancient Greeks and Romans eat lying down? (Thinkstock) Why did ancient Greeks and Romans eat lying down? By: Ask Smithsonian, Smithsonianmag.com November 25, 2015 Published: November 25, 2015 Lexile: 1230L var addthis_config = { services_exclude: 'print,printfriendly', data_ga_property: 'UA-6457029-1', data_track_clickback: true }; var addthis_share = { url_transforms : { shorten: { twitter: 'bitly' } }, shorteners : { bitly : {} }, templates : { twitter : '{' + '{title}' + '}: {' + '{url}' + '} via @TweenTribune' } }; 530L 780L 1040L 1230L Assign to Google Classroom You asked us, "Why did ancient Greeks and Romans eat lying down?"   Reclining and dining in ancient Greece started at least as early as the 7th century BCE and was later picked up by the Romans.   To eat lying down, while others served you, was a sign of power and luxury enjoyed by the elite. People further down the social ladder copied the laid-back dining style, if they could afford to.   I mean, who wouldn't want to stretch out while chowing down, but not everyone was so lucky in ancient Greece. You see, women didn't generally get invited to banquets except for rare occasions like wedding feasts and even then they had to sit upright.   It was only in ancient Rome that customs changed, allowing upper-class women to lounge alongside men, and while it sounds sweet, all that lying down and eating can't have been good for the heartburn. Source URL: https://www.tweentribune.com/article/teen/why-did-ancient-greeks-and-romans-eat-lying-down/ Filed Under:   Video Culture Odd news Smithsonian Assigned 49 times CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION Why did people “further down the social ladder” copy people above them? Write your answers in the comments section below Please log in to post a comment COMMENTS (15) arellanoj-rob 11/30/2015 - 09:46 a.m. I think that people "further down the social ladder" copied people above them because they thought it'd earn them some sort of respect. It probably gave them sense of power back then. julianc-bag 11/30/2015 - 07:32 p.m. I don;t like eating at the dinner table I prefer the living room. ShawnaWeiser-Ste 12/02/2015 - 03:56 p.m. This seems quite unnecessary and dangerous. Its very common for people lying down to choke while they are eating, I mean come on. Good thing the women and the poor were not allowed to engage in such activities; they probably lived much longer than the rich men. laurenc-bag 12/03/2015 - 09:18 p.m. People "further down the social ladder" copied people above them, possibly to make themselves look a little wealthier than they were. It was a sign of luxury and was only enjoyed by the elite, so they wanted to experience that as well. laurenc-bag 12/03/2015 - 09:21 p.m. And, most likely, my weirdest custom at home is listening to music while watching a video on my phone while FaceTiming my friends, if that even counts as a strange custom... But, I also pray before I eat every meal with my family, which might seem strange to some people. laurenc-bag 12/03/2015 - 09:30 p.m. (It didn't allow me to take the test for some reason...) carsonb-2-bar 12/03/2015 - 10:28 p.m. In the early 7th century reclining and dining in Greece started and later on picked up by the Romans. According to the article it was a sign of power, especially when others served you. People in lower social classes copied it. The lower class people probably copied the upper-class people to be cool. Maybe it made them feel powerful. I thought the article was interesting. I never knew why many pictures back in the 7th century show people eating while lying down. I guess you could say they were the first couch potatoes! bellae1-lin 12/04/2015 - 02:57 p.m. People "further down the social ladder" copied people above them because they wanted to feel luxurious and wealthy. They would want to feel this way because they may not be treated like luxury, and they wanted to see with the eyes of a wealthy being. briannec-ste 12/07/2015 - 05:09 p.m. I personally don't like to eat laying down because I feel like I am being choked. I don't understand how laying down and being fed was a sign of wealth. The laying down not at all but the getting fed I understand. gisellem-pay 12/08/2015 - 11:11 a.m. I think that this concept is similar to our current society. Many people find or develop a custom, in which will catch on to others just to prove their power or how modern they believe they are. This also reminds me of China and foot binding. This tradition was passed down for women as a beauty concept. Page 1 of 2 Next » Take the Quiz Leave a comment ADVERTISEMENT TOPICS Animals Video Education Art Entertainment Culture Food & Health Inspiration National news Odd news Science Technology World news ADVERTISEMENT LEXILE LEVELS 500L-590L 600L-690L 700L-790L 800L-890L 900L-990L 1000L-1090L 1100L-1190L 1200L-1290L 1300L-1600L ADVERTISEMENT Take the Quiz Leave a comment ABOUT US FAQs Terms of Use Privacy Statement LOGIN Sign In Teacher Sign Up Can't Login GET IN TOUCH Contact Us Facebook Twitter Pinterest RSS The Smithsonian Institution is a trust instrumentality of the United States established by an act of Congress in 1846 "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge" googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-tt-outofpage'); }); window.webtrendsAsyncInit=function(){ var dcs=new Webtrends.dcs().init({ dcsid:"dcs8v0iiladzpxfcn5y7c8cy2_5j6f", domain:"logs1.smithsonian.museum", timezone:-5, i18n:true, fpcdom:".tweentribune.com", plugins:{ } }).track(); }; (function(){ var s=document.createElement("script"); s.async=true; s.src="https://static.media.tweentribune.com/js/webtrends.min.js"; var s2=document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s2.parentNode.insertBefore(s,s2); }()); <img alt="dcsimg" id="dcsimg" width="1" height="1" src="//logs1.smithsonian.museum/dcs8v0iiladzpxfcn5y7c8cy2_5j6f/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&amp;WT.js=No&amp;WT.tv=10.4.23&amp;dcssip=www.tweentribune.com"/>

Neither question nor answer appears to understand the notion of semantic HTML. Height and width are presentational attributes regardless of where you put them. For semantics we establish what the image means to content in the alt tag. I don't remember why it was so important to width/height in the HTML but I suspect it was in case you hit browsers without CSS rendering. It's not a semantics issue. If anything it thwarts separation of concerns to a degree.

as it stands, this only goes to highlight what a miracle, what a classic for the ages Actraiser really is, whilst confirming itself as, unfortunately, one to avoid.